Joan of Arc oops, Cactus Kate seems to think so … apparently exasperated that John Banks isn’t adhering to the ‘principles’ of the ACT Party. (Well, we sort of agree about that, then. But is it just Banks? Or ‘geriatrics’ in the hip young party?)

Enough already.
John Banks won the Epsom seat with the help of his University students called the “Killer Bees”.

He’s now stung them on the arse.

… Yet John Banks, a man who made a fortune in hospitality selling booze to patrons along with their steaks so he could put more money into property developments for more bars, will not support the Keep it 18 campaign.

That’s great John, University students can come help you campaign and you can serve them all orange juice. That will bring in the punters. Rather like a steakhouse without booze. …

In the meantime on behalf of the students all of whom are afraid/shy/spun in your web of silliness [sic] to tell you that you don’t belong in ACT, let me remind you of the principles of the ACT Party, that Nikki Kaye and for heaven’s sake Trevor Mallard and Gareth Hughes seem more capable of understanding

I encourage the remaining members of ACT on Campus to tell John where to stick his righteous, patronising conservatism as it is only going to get worse. Something like this is excellent. If the geriatric 65+ yo members of the party can’t adhere to its written principles then perhaps they need a little reminder.

It’s true about the young Actoids campaigning for Banks (see pre-election pic above).

You had to ask at the time …Question: How good a fit was John Banks for self-identifying libertarian university students?
Judging by the what’s being said now, Answer:Not a very good one. Surprise me.

Cathy’s ‘You don’t belong in ACT‘ complaint is up there with a teenager I know who accused her parents of ‘sucking all the fun out of my life!’.

On reflection, poormastery does not join you in your apparent feelings of schadenfraude at the collapse of ACT, despite the obvious mistakes they have made.

I see economic collapse in Europe, which I think is predominantly a result of decades of government destruction of the private sector. Government spending and government debt got so big in Europe, that the private sector can no longer support it all. Hundreds of millions of people could be thrown into penury and misery as a result. Socialism, which had such high minded objectives, has failed. Sure, the people will be more even in income distribution – because most citizens in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France, Ireland et al will be poor. New Zealand should not follow this example…

ACT was a party that gave voters a choice. If you were tired of huge welfare spending, you could vote for them.

Now what?

National is unrestrained in its big spending – after all, there is no counterbalance on the right. Winston First, the Greens (who are basically Communists) and Labour all want bigger government.

Of course, ACT is themselves largely to blame for their predicament. MMP is a system where they could have been influential.

Still, if the Greens, Labour and Winston First do get an opportunity to vandalise the NZ economy with their huge tax and squander agendas, perhaps the legendary zero percent will get the last laugh? Alas, such an outcome may prove to be something of pyrrhic victory…

Socialism has failed?? I’m gobsmacked. I didnt know socialism had ever really got its chance to run toward the tape.

One tends to forget – that a couple of world wars happened – and the consequent aftermaths … one aftermath leading to another war and then that aftermath – which we all still live with today.

Isnt there a global economy driven by the financial sector that has had a large hand in all this … or am i wrong?

Or is socialism responsible for that as well.

To call the Greens communists is also one of the stupidest statements i’ve ever read. Poormastery loveth to rewrite history through the lens of his particular narrow faith it would seem. But who am i to judge.

I am not surprised. The young have been royally rogered by the baby boomer generation. As youth unemployment tops 50% in Greece and Spain, the young ask for a level playing field. Sounds fair to me.

I suppose in my life and career, two generations have dominated. I can see with great clarity the generational gap in global politics, although I have personally done rather well out of baby boomer hegemony.

Early on we had the 1930 – 1950’s generation. They were typically conservative. Overall, their values were forged from the tragedy of Great Depression and the maelstrom of war. Hard work, respect, support for the community, loyalty, prudence, humility, modesty and toughness characterised this generation. Sometimes, they were slow to change, but who could blame them, given the deprivations and hardships that their generation suffered? It was arguably easier to be a tree hugger with a flower in your hair, when the blood of your comrades hadn’t poured into a Guadalcanal or French beach…

This generation has been superseded by the baby boomer generation of the 1960’s. The values of the baby boomer are typically sickly liberal. Hard work is often replaced with the “Because I am worth it” entitlement mentality. Prudence gave way to greed for vacuous baubles, and showy displays of undeserved decadence. Loyalty was replaced by spin and triangulation. Respect transferred from teachers, policemen and doctors to celebrities, newsreaders, jugglers and clowns.

Thus, the 1990’s saw some ghastly politicians being elected. Mr Bliar and his loathsome wife Imelda Blair in Britain. And the moral slopjar Mr Clinton and his shrew wife in the US.

“In the Clinton campaign, we saw the early efforts at what became known as “triangulation”, in which a leader tries to transcend the terminology of Left and Right to sit above ideology or even ideas. This means saying whatever it takes to win.

New Labour, therefore, borrowed the economic rhetoric of its opponents, claiming it too would be prudent. When spending soared, Labour was unwilling to be honest about the scale of tax rises required to cover the bill, so deficits were run at the height of an unsustainable, credit-driven boom. The gap between rhetoric and reality widened to the point that the bond of trust with the electorate that “prudent” New Labour had been designed to re-establish was destroyed.”

While you’ll get no defence from me of the ghastly, terminally cynical but strangely populist Clinton/Blair ‘third way’ spin — so categorically exposed for what it was by the secrecy of Clinton’s lessons in dog whistling (campaign messaging) from the reptilian Dick Morris, and Blair’s glossy salesmanship assisted by [expletive deleted] Alastair Campbell — how is ACT’s pandering to resentful right wing racists (‘Are you sick of the Maorification of everything?’) any different?

The purported raison d’être for any self-identifying fringe ginger group like ACT viz: It brings ‘counterbalance’ to the Force is, well, unconvincing when it comes to measuring results.

Democratic politics, as practitioners on all parts of the spectrum eventually learn, is all about numbers. You get votes, or you don’t get ’em. Winston Peters NZ First = 6.59% of the vote — more than six times ACT’s support. That’s what’s referred to as ‘an inconvenient truth’ as far as ACT is concerned.

That applies, unfortunately for your argument, to the vote-attracting Clinton and Blair.

This, from you:

ACT was a party that gave voters a choice. If you were tired of huge welfare spending, you could vote for them.

… is a miss, with respect.
That’s never been the outcome of voting for ACT.

ACT’s marketing in 2011 (I was here, watching it) boiled down to: “Vote ACT/John Banks for a John Key led government”.

Politically irrelevant, out of their own mouths, in other words.

Once elected, through the cynical exploitation of electoral law (I call it that whether it’s done by the Left or the Right) ACT’s policy win is … a trial of Charter Schools. Was that even in the Party manifesto?

‘Now what?’ you ask. Does anyone care?

-P

PS, this was satire, right? Because it made me laugh:

National is unrestrained in its big spending – after all, there is no counterbalance on the right. Winston First, the Greens (who are basically Communists) and Labour all want bigger government.

The “vote-attracting” Herr Schicklgruber certainly achieved the most votes in 1933. Yet what does it all mean?

“Democratic politics, as practitioners on all parts of the spectrum eventually learn, is all about numbers.”

Okay. So it was. Yet maybe there can still be lessons to be learnt? The voters are not always right?

Nonetheless, for sure, the ACT Party seems to have become very silly since Mr Prebble left.

Yet I personally think it is sad that there is no effective libertarian party in NZ.

As for the Greens,

“Ecology as a social principle … condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.” (Ayn Rand)

It’s a potentially dangerous statement to say, even knowing the terrible consequences of Hitler’s elevation, that ‘the voters got it wrong’. (Well, you suggested ‘The voters are not always right?’)

Arguably, the Great Depression, hyper-inflation, and the punishing war reparations demanded of Germany following WWI created the environment for a Hitler-esque Far Right ‘takeover’ … but fascism wasn’t limited to the Reich, so … hmm.

So, what’s a better system? (Cue: Winston Churchill on Democracy best and worst.)

About ACT: Yes, I’ve defended participation in democracy as an important value and that applies equally to the 1%. (Hate speech excepted.)
Doesn’t the saying ‘If salt loses its flavour what is it good for’ kind of apply to their situation?
UPDATE: It’s instructive (isn’t it?) that the ‘rebellion’ in the ACT Party about John Banks has been brought to a head by a minor issue: an argument about raising the drinking age. Dumb.

I liked Richard Prebble too.

Considering John Key’s early incarnation as ‘Labour Lite’ the search to occupy the middle of politics in New Zealand (essentially a socialist country, it seems to me) seems to be the way forward toward electoral success, if not Toward Prosperity*

MMP changes the landscape, but I think the predictions of the ‘inevitability’ of left-leaning governments after 2014 as a result is oversold. No sure bets.

Cathy Odgers — helpful to ACT or not helpful?

I wonder if by commenting on this supposed ‘discontent’ and ‘rebellion‘ within ACT, I’m just a hapless pawn in another of Cathy’s oh-so-clever Baldrick-esque cunning plans (i.e. a feedback mechanism for what’s left of the ‘libertarian’ ACT party to communicate with their conservative leader.)

Everyone it seems – has a camera on their metaphorical bike helmet these days. It makes for a particularly smug form of self righteousness. Note also vocality from those who dont actually even live in this country.

Appreciated you not blithely accepting PMY’s skewed ‘logic’.

Sitting in Switzerland and having lived in other countries doesnt make anyone a fucking expert.

No matter how high the self imagined ivory tower happens to be. I wonder whether globalism has made many, lose their grip on reality.

Good response Pete … but is poormastery practicing poverty or something else… he has a double entendre implicit in his handle say wot.

I’ve met, worshipped with, worked with, known, hated, loved, married, begat – people who’ve travelled the world …. and in my view largely remained totally untouched by the experience. All thats left is a collection of airline vouchers and fading passport stamps.

If however you are referring in a naughty way – to being an expert on fucking – well – i’ve already got that “nailed”.

Just covering all the bases … i do so hate misunderstandings. It offends all my socialist senses.